Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Improvements for the future
#11
I think the idea is that the concept of magic has an element of uncertainty. It makes a little sense to me to have some flexibility in the spell list because, from a role-playing perspective, whatever wizard was charting new magical territory for his kingdom would necessarily know what his research would yield. It would also make it so that the more veteran players didn't have quite such an edge over new players in knowing when each kingdom gets which spell.
-The Deliverer
Reply
#12
(06-06-2013, 04:57 PM)Kalrex Wrote: It could have the same impact on the game-

Think more outside the box. Surprises happen all the time in this game. Known quantities ought to exist and troop types are as relevant as spells-

You want more surprises, I get it. What if positions get some unbalanced spells too soon and others get shafted? What's the difference between that and troop types being mixed up??????

You want magic to be an unknown quantity though it's an important aspect of this game. Why not make troop types an unknown quantity as well then? Why is one a good idea and the other unreasonable?

I'll advocate the spell thing and you can advocate the troop thing. That will be the difference.
 Lord Diamond

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.





Reply
#13
This thread is all about bored veteran players. Perhaps what needs to be considered is what’s good for novice players. Perhaps an improvement would be to recruit new players who can start in novice only games. If the game grows enough so staff can be redirected to changes in content in each game then that’s great. If a veteran gets bored and quits for every 2 novices attracted who don’t get chewed by veterans then the game can improve. This thread is like a microcosm of what killed Everquest. The producers of EQ responded to the demands of the vocal minority who wanted new content while ignoring the casual majority who just wanted to have some fun and didn’t only want to digest content. Of all MMO’s I've tried I think DC Universe Online has managed the best balance between new and veteran. DCUO don't make the game a veteran only thing but keeps veterans busy.

Harry O
Reply
#14
This thread is about keeping the game fresh and exciting while helping to narrow the huge success gap between veterans and newbies.

It's also about building the game that I want to be playing in a couple of years.

Perhaps there will be room for two games; Classic Alamaze with no changes or progression for those who appreciate that sort of thing, and a future Alamaze that embraces change to keep the game interesting for those of us with shorter attention spans.
 Lord Diamond

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.





Reply
#15
Agreed!
Reply
#16
Stuff I'd like in the future that's doable.

1) 1st Cycle games.

2) Even up the team games. Too damn lopsided for the Neutrals to join the non-"good" kingdoms. It's unintuitive to join them even.

3) Clean up the minor stuff, make some of the outcomes more logical. IE, Group parlays a Village and the Village goes to them. same turn an enemy Noble is able to usurp control of the same Village- with that same army sitting there...

4) New encounters and move positions around for variance.

I'm a proponent of keeping some things "known" obviously such as Red Dragons troops are really good and it's good to know what positions have Wall of Fire and whatnot. Game breaking stuff should remain the same IMO.

Maybe have minor special kingdom abilities be optional: Such as the "Escape" option and "+ 10 Political Modifier" options be available to several kingdoms and they can select which abilities they like at the outset of the game. I think the positions core strengths should be the same however.
Reply
#17
I agree that the team games are a bit skewed. How would you fix them?
 Lord Diamond

Please do not take any of my comments as a personal insult or as a criticism of the game 'Alamaze', which I very much enjoy. Rather, I hope that my personal insight and unique perspective may, in some way, help make 'Alamaze' more fun, a more successful financial venture, or simply more sustainable as a long-term project. Anyone who reads this post should feel completely free to ignore, disregard, scorn, implement, improve, dispute, or otherwise comment upon its content.





Reply
#18
Can we have 1st cycle kingdoms with 2nd cycle rules?
Reply
#19
(06-13-2013, 09:36 PM)Lord Diamond Wrote: I agree that the team games are a bit skewed. How would you fix them?

One quick way would be to swap the UN and GN positions on teams. That way, the neutrals have one good natural enemy, one evil natural enemy, and hey, the ultimate mercenaries, the UN.

Reply
#20
(06-13-2013, 11:43 PM)Cargus10 Wrote:
(06-13-2013, 09:36 PM)Lord Diamond Wrote: I agree that the team games are a bit skewed. How would you fix them?

One quick way would be to swap the UN and GN positions on teams. That way, the neutrals have one good natural enemy, one evil natural enemy, and hey, the ultimate mercenaries, the UN.

Whoever declared the RD GN SO to be neutral failed to notice they shared no enemy with the evil team. The real neutral team is UN WI BL.

There is currently a perfect 6 on 6 set up with DE DA TR RD GN SO vs DW EL AN RA GI WA. Study the natural enemies.

To truly balance it you would need to construct the teams in such a way that there is no 6 vs. 6 +3.

I'm not sure is a perfect system is possible but something more like this will be closer:

EL RA RD

TR AN SO

DE GN DA

DW GI WA

BL UN WI


Plot these on paper and draw lines between the enemies.


With this design you might also need to move the SO back to R2.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)